Is Some Racism More or Less Racism Than Other Racism?

[Guest]

Prejudice becomes legitimate when if affects someone's perceptions and actions. Those perceptions and actions don't have to be part of the majority to be hurtful or harmful.

That is exactly correct. Its no different (and I see no reason that it should be thought of as different) than any other individual personality trait or psychological attribute. Racism is a mental state and mental set. It has no definite connection to political power or oppression until and unless it actually does. For another example, Pol Pot and his gang of utopian theorists killed some two million people in an act of ideological class cleansing of their society, but even if they had never laid a hand on anyone, they all still would have held their bigoted, hateful philosophy; and it was that (just like Nazi race cleansing ideology) that led to the Killing Fields, not the power they held per se.

Does a racist black gang member standing over a white Senator or Congressman, or multimillionaire businessman, who in his mind is just a represenatative of an amorphous "whitey" with a Tec-9, not have power over him?

Is someone a racist only because they can be "effectively racist"? The implication is that racism only matters externally impactful. I would argue that racism has a negative impact on the person that holds racist attitudes.

Indeed.

If a majority becomes a minority and loses power, does their prejudice no longer matter? I don't think so.

Obviously not, and to think otherwise requires a fundamental suspension of logical thought.

Also, I think there's a subtext here: It's okay to hate if you don't have power.

You know, I actually hadn't thought of that aspect of it. It does look like a kind of moral licensure. If you're a Hindu in Salt Lake, and a group of other Hindus can take over the state legislature, you can become a racist - but only collectively with them and because who control that legislature. If you are just a single Hindu racist, and you go out and set fire to a Muslim mini-mart because to can't stand the sight of Muslims, you are a criminal for Krose, but not a racist, because your identity group does not control a majority of official political power in the political community in which you exist.

And Droopy, I do agree with you on this one. That, coupled with the Mayan calendar, gives me a uneasy feeling about the end of this year ;-)

I just thank heavens you didn't bring Nostradamus into this.

[_krose]

Nice job cherry picking, droop.

[_Drifting]

Krose's opinions here are a textbook example of just the degree to which the Left, wherever it arises and holds cultural dominance, as it does in America and the West, is such a clear and present danger to the very ground and basis of civilization and to humanity itself.

Well, at least you didn't overdramatise...

[_ldsfaqs]

Sometimes people call something racism and people racist when it has nothing to do with racism.

For example, small apartment complex landlords in Asian countries might resist renting an apartment to a white person, not because they are white, but because they can't communicate with their tenant.

A Hindu in Utah might not get the same opportunity as a Mormon in Utah, not because he's a Hindu but because he might not look or sound as professional as possibly a Mormon might.

The job I work at, people always complain that our company or others when you call for customer service or support you are talking to someone in India. It has nothing to do with "racism" it has to do with not being able to understand the dang person. They want help, they don't want to have to "strain" to even talk to someone.

Liberals have a bad habit of thinking the lowest common denominator rather than with the actual truth.

[_Drifting]

For example, small apartment complex landlords in Asian countries might resist renting an apartment to a white person, not because they are white, but because they can't communicate with their tenant.

What is it when a religious Organisation doesn't allow persons of a certain lineage, simply because of their lineage, the same rights and privileges within the organisation as other persons not from that lineage?

[_subgenius]

For example, small apartment complex landlords in Asian countries might resist renting an apartment to a white person, not because they are white, but because they can't communicate with their tenant.

What is it when a religious Organisation doesn't allow persons of a certain lineage, simply because of their lineage, the same rights and privileges within the organisation as other persons not from that lineage?

the NAACP is not a religious organization.

[_Drifting]

For example, small apartment complex landlords in Asian countries might resist renting an apartment to a white person, not because they are white, but because they can't communicate with their tenant.

What is it when a religious Organisation doesn't allow persons of a certain lineage, simply because of their lineage, the same rights and privileges within the organisation as other persons not from that lineage?

the NAACP is not a religious organization.

Strangely my question wasn't "is the NAACP a religious organisation?"
See above my actual question and perhaps you could answ... who am I kidding...

[_beastie]

Question for beastie: Do you believe that it is moral and right for colleges and universities to ask what race students are in 2012 when they are applying to what colleges and universities they want to get into??

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-set ... 30562.html

Sorry, I didn't realize I was being asked questions. I have a habit of ignoring most of droopy's threads.

This is a complicated question, in my opinion. Let me start by asking you a question: was it ever justified for colleges and universities to ask what race students are?

I'm not trying to avoid answering your question, but first trying to see where we might have a common ground.

[_beastie]

I asked Beastie this in another thread, but wanted to start a new thread to give this a little more visibility.

Without making this a monograph length essay, I'd like the response of you and any/all other liberals here who wish to comment, what you make of this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-lamo ... 48679.html

I'd also like a critique of the Huffington Post, a mainstream publication of the Left, vis-à-vis what kind of paper would publish attitudes such as this, essentially as an op-ed, and not as a report, without critical comment.

I understand the sentiment behind his essay. In many ways, in history and yet today, white people simply get more general attention than African Americans. However, the tone was offensive and he should have provided more context for the purpose of the essay.

As far as critiquing the HuffPo for publishing this essay, I doubt that they've posted many essays of this sort. At least I haven't noticed any others. And I'll take your criticisms seriously the day you rag on WND for publishing Jerome Corsi. Here's one example of his idiocy:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/claim-obama- ... president/

[_ldsfaqs]

For example, small apartment complex landlords in Asian countries might resist renting an apartment to a white person, not because they are white, but because they can't communicate with their tenant.

What is it when a religious Organisation doesn't allow persons of a certain lineage, simply because of their lineage, the same rights and privileges within the organisation as other persons not from that lineage?

Men don't have the same rights and privileges as women, women don't have the same rights and privileges as men, other men don't have the same rights and privileges as other men, some are leaders some are not, some exercise authority some don't, an unmarried man doesn't have the same rights and privileges as a married man, and on and on.

You're talking to the choir. I once left the Church primarily because of the Priesthood ban, I know everything about it, because I now know more, it wasn't racist at all, at least by the Church. The ban existed because of the racism in the world at the time.